This study examined the classification accuracy for subskill mastery measures administered in mathematics for students in kindergarten and Grades 1, 3, 5, and 7 at fall (n = 564) and winter (n = 602) screening. In addition, response to classwide math intervention was examined as another layer of screening for students in kindergarten and Grades 1, 3, and 5 (n = 387). Criterion measures were the year-end accountability measure for math in Grades 3, 5, and 7. For kindergarten and Grade 1 a researcher-constructed composite measure was used. For all measures (screening and criterion), 20th percentile performance was the risk criterion. Authors hypothesized that classwide intervention response would provide more accurate identification of risk than fall or winter screening. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC)–generated sensitivities and specificities supported this hypothesis. Data indicated that intervention dosage was adequate and did reduce the base rate of risk in each screening group. Posttest probabilities indicated that subskill mastery measures and response to classwide intervention could be used to accurately indicate math risk and the need for more intensive intervention for students in a multitier system of supports (MTSS) model.
American Institutes for Research. (2017). Annual technical report Arizona statewide assessment in English language arts and math: 2016–2017 school year. Washington, DC: AIR in collaboration with Arizona Department of Education.
2.
ArdoinS. P.WittJ. C.ConnellJ. E.KoenigJ. L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362–380.
3.
BaluR.ZhuP.DoolittleF.SchillerE.JenkinsJ.GerstenR. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016-4000). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
4.
BriganceA. (1999). Comprehensive inventory of basic skills. (Rev. ed.). North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates, Inc.
5.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.RobertsG.VaughnS.PfannenstielK. H.PorterfieldJ.GerstenR. (2011). Early numeracy intervention programs for first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78, 7–23.
6.
BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M.JibanC. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.
7.
ClarkeB.ShinnM. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33, 234–248.
8.
CoddingR. S.Chan-IannettaL.PalmerM.LukitoG. (2009). Examining a classwide application of cover-copy-compare with and without goal setting to enhance mathematics fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 173–185. doi:10.1037/a0017192
9.
DawesR. M. (1962). A note on base rates and psychometric efficiency. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 26, 422–424.
10.
DeeksJ. J.AltmanD. G. (2004). Diagnostic tests 4: Likelihood ratios. British Medical Journal, 329, 168–169. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7458.168
11.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
12.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139.
13.
FloydR. G.HojnoskiR.KeyJ. (2006). Preliminary evidence of the technical adequacy of the preschool numeracy indicators. School Psychology Review, 35, 627–644.
14.
GinsburgH. P.BaroodyA. J. (2003). Test of early mathematics ability: Examiner’s manual (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
15.
KettlerR. J.Feeney-KettlerK. A. (2011). Screening systems and decision making at the preschool level: Application of a comprehensive validity framework. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 430-441. DOI:10.1002/pits.20565
16.
MeehlP. E.RosenA. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194–216.
17.
OkamotoY.CaseR. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children’s central conceptual structures in the domain of number. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, 27–59.
18.
PendergastL. L.YoungstromE. A.Ruan-IuL.BeysolowD. (2018). The nomogram: A decision-making tool for practitioners using multi-tiered systems of support. School Psychology Review, 47, 345–359.
19.
PoncyB. C.SkinnerC. H. (2011). Combining class-wide cover, copy, and compare (CCC) with an interdependent group contingency to enhance addition-fact fluency in a first-grade classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 1–20.
20.
SeethalerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2010). The predictive utility of kindergarten screening for math difficulty. Exceptional Children, 77, 37–59.
21.
ShapiroE. S. (2011). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
ShinnM. R.BamontoS. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: “Big ideas” and avoiding confusion. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 1–31). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23.
Spectrum K12 School Solutions. (2010). Response to intervention adoption survey 2009. Towson, MD: Author.
24.
VanDerHeydenA. M. (2010). Determining early mathematical risk: Ideas for extending the research. School Psychology Review, 39, 196–202.
25.
VanDerHeydenA. M. (2013). Universal screening may not be for everyone: Using a threshold model as a smarter way to determine risk. School Psychology Review, 42, 402–414.
VanDerHeydenA. M.BroussardC.SnyderP.GeorgeJ.LaFleurS. M.WilliamsC. (2011). Measurement of kindergartners’ understanding of early mathematical concepts. School Psychology Review, 40, 296–305.
28.
VanDerHeydenA. M.BurnsM. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 15–31.
29.
VanDerHeydenA. M.CoddingR. (2015). Practical effects of classwide mathematics intervention. School Psychology Review, 44, 169–190. doi:10.17105/spr-13-0087.1
30.
VanDerHeydenA. M.CoddingR.MartinR. (2017). Relative value of common screening measures in mathematics. School Psychology Review, 46, 65–87.
31.
VanDerHeydenA. M.McLaughlinT.AlginaJ.SnyderP. (2012). Randomized evaluation of a supplemental grade-wide mathematics intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 1251–1284. doi:10.3102/0002831212462736
32.
VanDerHeydenA. M.WittJ. C. (2005). Quantifying the context of assessment: Capturing the effect of base rates on teacher referral and a problem-solving model of identification. School Psychology Review, 34, 161–183.
33.
VanDerHeydenA. M.WittJ. C.NaquinG.NoellG. (2001). The reliability and validity of curriculum-based measurement readiness probes for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 30, 363–382.
